MDL 2873 is the federal multidistrict litigation In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard Gergel since December 2018. Federal AFFF and PFAS cases from across the country are consolidated there for pretrial proceedings. It is one of the largest MDLs in the federal system.

Is MDL 2873 a class action?

No. An MDL consolidates individual lawsuits for pretrial handling only; each case keeps its own facts and its own value. That is different from a class action, where one judgment binds every member. Cases that do not resolve can be remanded to their home districts for trial.

Who can bring an AFFF claim?

The two broad groups are personal-injury claimants — military and civilian firefighters, base personnel, airport workers, and residents who drank water contaminated by AFFF runoff — and public entities such as water authorities seeking treatment and remediation costs. Personal-injury claims generally require a diagnosed condition linked to PFAS exposure.

What settlements have already happened?

The large announced settlements to date have been with public water systems, not individual injury claimants: 3M's multibillion-dollar water-utility settlement and separate agreements involving DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, plus state-level attorney general settlements such as New Jersey's. Those figures are industry-wide resolutions reported in the litigation. They are not results obtained by this firm and they do not predict any individual outcome.

Has the personal-injury side gone to trial?

The MDL worked through water-provider bellwethers first, and the personal-injury track — the cases involving kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and related diagnoses — has been moving through its own bellwether selection and discovery process. Because the docket changes, treat any date you read online as needing confirmation before you rely on it.

Is it too late to file an AFFF claim?

Statutes of limitation vary by state and by claim type, and can start running from diagnosis or from when the exposure link reasonably should have been known. Waiting is the main way people lose the right to file. If you are unsure, submit the intake and let the review team check the timing rather than assuming.

← AFFF firefighting foam overview

AFFF MDL 2873: Where the Litigation Stands

The federal AFFF firefighting foam litigation is consolidated as MDL 2873 in the District of South Carolina. This page explains what that means, what has already settled, what is still being litigated, and what a Pennsylvania claimant should do about it.

Check eligibility →

How the litigation got here

December 2018

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralizes federal AFFF cases as MDL 2873 in the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard Gergel.

2019 – 2022

The docket grows into the thousands as water authorities, states, firefighters, service members, and residents file. Discovery focuses first on what manufacturers knew about PFOA and PFOS toxicity and when.

2023

3M announces a multibillion-dollar settlement framework with public water systems, and DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva announce a separate water-utility settlement. Both cover drinking-water treatment costs, not individual injuries.

2024 – 2025

The MDL turns toward the personal-injury track: bellwether pools centered on kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis, with expert discovery and general-causation briefing.

State-level actions

Attorneys general pursue separate natural-resource-damage cases. New Jersey's roughly $3 billion set of agreements with 3M and DuPont-related entities is the largest state resolution reported to date.

The settlement figures above are industry-wide resolutions reported in the AFFF litigation and in public court filings. They are not results obtained by Quinlan Law Group, and no case outcome is guaranteed. Past results do not predict future outcomes.

Two different tracks, often confused

Most of the headline dollar figures reported so far relate to the water-provider track — public utilities recovering the cost of removing PFAS from drinking water. Those settlements do not pay individuals.

The personal-injury track is separate. It covers firefighters, military and base personnel, airport workers, and residents who drank AFFF-affected water and were later diagnosed with a PFAS-linked condition. If you are a person rather than a water authority, this is the track your claim belongs to, and it is still being litigated.

Pennsylvania AFFF exposure sites

Former Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, Bucks County
Former NAS Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, Montgomery County
Horsham Air Guard Station, Montgomery County
Letterkenny Army Depot, Franklin County
Harrisburg International Airport, former Olmsted Air Force Base, Dauphin County
Municipal and volunteer fire-training grounds across the Commonwealth

More detail on those sites and the exposure pathways is on the AFFF firefighting foam page. To check whether your water was affected, see PFAS water testing in Pennsylvania, and for the diagnoses under review see PFAS-linked health conditions.

What a Pennsylvania claimant does now

1Write down where you served, worked, or lived near an AFFF source, with approximate years.
2Collect the diagnosis paperwork — pathology reports, oncology summaries, and treatment records.
3Gather anything tying you to the location: utility bills, deeds or leases, employment records, DD-214 or service records.
4Submit the intake form so the timing can be checked against the applicable limitation period.

Representation of accepted cases is typically on a contingency-fee basis — no attorneys’ fees unless a recovery is obtained. Clients may remain responsible for case costs and expenses; the written retainer will set out how costs are handled.

Attorney advertising notice. This page is general information about publicly reported litigation, not legal advice, and the MDL docket changes frequently. Submitting an intake form does not create an attorney-client relationship, and cases may be referred to national PFAS co-counsel.

AFFF Exposure Case Review

Confidential intake for Pennsylvania firefighters, service members, and residents exposed to AFFF.

Full Name *

Phone *

Email *

PA County

City / Town

ZIP

Type of Exposure

Exposure Location

From (Year)

To (Year)

Diagnosis (if any)

Year Diagnosed

Tell Us More

I am contacting Quinlan Law Group at my own request. I understand this submission is not a solicitation, that submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship, and that no attorney is retained until a written retainer is signed. I consent to be contacted by email or phone at the information I provided about my case, and I understand my case may be referred to co-counsel and that any fee-sharing arrangement will be disclosed to me in writing before representation begins.

By submitting you agree to our review of the information provided. Your information is kept confidential. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Frequently Asked Questions

AFFF MDL 2873 FAQs

What is MDL 2873?: MDL 2873 is the federal multidistrict litigation In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard Gergel since December 2018. Federal AFFF and PFAS cases from across the country are consolidated there for pretrial proceedings. It is one of the largest MDLs in the federal system.
Is MDL 2873 a class action?: No. An MDL consolidates individual lawsuits for pretrial handling only; each case keeps its own facts and its own value. That is different from a class action, where one judgment binds every member. Cases that do not resolve can be remanded to their home districts for trial.
Who can bring an AFFF claim?: The two broad groups are personal-injury claimants — military and civilian firefighters, base personnel, airport workers, and residents who drank water contaminated by AFFF runoff — and public entities such as water authorities seeking treatment and remediation costs. Personal-injury claims generally require a diagnosed condition linked to PFAS exposure.
What settlements have already happened?: The large announced settlements to date have been with public water systems, not individual injury claimants: 3M's multibillion-dollar water-utility settlement and separate agreements involving DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, plus state-level attorney general settlements such as New Jersey's. Those figures are industry-wide resolutions reported in the litigation. They are not results obtained by this firm and they do not predict any individual outcome.
Has the personal-injury side gone to trial?: The MDL worked through water-provider bellwethers first, and the personal-injury track — the cases involving kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and related diagnoses — has been moving through its own bellwether selection and discovery process. Because the docket changes, treat any date you read online as needing confirmation before you rely on it.
Is it too late to file an AFFF claim?: Statutes of limitation vary by state and by claim type, and can start running from diagnosis or from when the exposure link reasonably should have been known. Waiting is the main way people lose the right to file. If you are unsure, submit the intake and let the review team check the timing rather than assuming.

Check eligibility →PFAS litigation news